Atheists: does God exist?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am offering the discussion on the word itself, which very effectively gives expression to what "religion" actually is—regular appeal to a moral system or standard.

You referred to an archaic usage. The word religion means what the people who speak and write it mean when they use it.

How is that not relevant?

Because this is 2024, not when that word was coined.

My little sister's middle name is "Gay." Does that mean that my parents named her after a homosexual, or because she was homosexual, or because they expected her to become so? Because it has been a long time since society used the word "gay" in its now-archaic sense. Does that change the fact that they named her "gay" for feelings of felicity and joy? Clearly not. Same principle.

Yes. The meaning of words drift. Gay meant happy once, but that usage has fallen from the common lexicon. It has been supplanted by a different meaning. Ask anybody named Karen about that.

The word "religion" is what it is. It points to something applicable to all morally bound human beings.

Not for most of us.

I'm not arguing that the customary usage is incorrect. I'm pointing out that it is inadequate to reality.

You've made the claim but not the argument. I'd say that it is the archaic usage that no longer reflects reality.

As I just said to F1fan, I have not asserted that atheism is a religion. I have said only that all humans that espouse or claim or adhere to a moral system have a "religion" and are within that framework "religious," for that is what the words mean.

My worldview is atheistic humanism. That's a religion to you by virtue of being a worldview. If that's how you think, your other ideas that derive from that unshared premise become meaningless. Call that a religion and I lose interest in your other related opinions.

 

[idea]

... You don't use Ser, for example, when you're talking about knowing a person; ...

It is impossible to know a person, as it is impossible to know God.

"To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know​

The Mormons are not the only group who claim knowledge. I've spent years in two different groups with this belief, childhood in one, midlife in another...

Elevation (emotion) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

...distinct feeling of warmth and expansion ...

You know how birds flock together, wolves, deer, ants... people are social too, bond with one another. From experience in different groups, I must conclude It's a herd bonding instinct. Not from God, won't guide to keep kids safe, doesn't confirm truth, it bonds people together, makes them call one another brother and sister. A beautiful thing to experience in many groups, but not from God, not knowledge...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you?

Can I what?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not my understanding of the allegory. Yes, there are an enlightened few involved, but they still can't see reality except as projections onto consciousness through the senses like every other cave dweller, which is what the shadows represent. The enlightened mind still can't get out of his theater of consciousness (cave) to see reality unprocessed by his mind (objects outside the cave), but he understands that, which is the sense in which he is enlightened. Maybe that's not a standard understanding.

There's a summary of the allegory here: Allegory of the cave - Wikipedia

The bullet-point version:

• There are prisoners who have been chained from childhood in a cave so that they face the wall of the cave.
• Behind the prisoners, there's another wall, and beyond that wall, a fire.
• In between the wall and the fire, people walk back and forth. The people are hidden by the wall, but they carry shapes that poke up over the wall and cast shadows.
• The prisoners take these shadows to be actual objects. When they hear the voices of the people carrying the shapes, they interpret them to be coming from these shadows.
• If a prison were to be unshackled and run to the mouth of the cave, the bright sunlight would hurt his eyes so much that he'd retreat back into the cave for relief.
• If you were to grab someone and haul them out into the daylight, eventually his eyes would adjust and he would see the world as it truly is.
• If you took that former prisoner, now used to daylight, and put him back in the cave, he would no longer be able to see in the darkness.
• The other prisoners would interpret his blindness in the dark as a sign that the world he was describing to them wasn't real. They'd conclude he had gone mad and kill him.

Pretty much every time I've heard the Allegory of the Cave presented by someone online, it's by someone who claims they've made it out into the light and is trying to reason with the rest of us still stuck in the cave.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Can I what?

Find a paradigm that works for you, without dismissing all others (those of religious people perhaps) as smoke and mirrors?

 

[Tomef]

especially not the Christian one

How come he gets this category of being especially non-existent?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Find a paradigm that works for you, without dismissing all others (those of religious people perhaps) as smoke and mirrors?

Sounds like you've got some sort of axe to grind here.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Pretty much every time I've heard the Allegory of the Cave presented by someone online, it's by someone who claims they've made it out into the light and is trying to reason with the rest of us still stuck in the cave.

OK. I haven't seen that explanation given, but it doesn't matter that I haven't. Certainly, the allegory is about perception, illusion, and knowledge. You see it as about enlightenment. I see it as being about the difference between reality perceived and reality prior to being perceived - about how consciousness perforce modifies perception in the rendering of sensory experience and generates a subjective viewpoint that is necessarily incomplete, or has had elements added or deleted in the process of being the rendering - a situation from which there is no escape, since we can't know about whatever is out there except through this process.

I found this comment, which seems to support your viewpoint that the ignorance referred to below can be overcome. As I have interpreted it, that's not the case, that the best we can do is be aware of this limitation:

"The hidden message of Plato's Cave is an escape from ignorance. Reality is but a construction. The world is only as big as we can imagine. Plato's Cave has at its heart internal conflict. If we open our minds to new ideas and belief systems, we can expand our universe."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK. I haven't seen that explanation given, but it doesn't matter that I haven't. Certainly, the allegory is about perception, illusion, and knowledge. You see it as about enlightenment. I see it as being about the difference between reality perceived and reality prior to being perceived - about how consciousness perforce modifies perception in the rendering of sensory experience and generates a subjective viewpoint that is necessarily incomplete, or has had elements added or deleted in the process of being the rendering - a situation from which there is no escape, since we can't know about whatever is out there except through this process.

I see where you're coming from, though I focus on these aspects of the analogy:

- Plato emphasizes that the prisoners were brought into the cave as children; they weren't born there. They started out being able to see reality as it is and just forgot it.

- The shadows on the wall are the result of a deliberate conspiracy carried out by people. In the allegory, mistaking shadows for reality isn't innate to the human condition; it's an artificial situation that takes a lot of human effort to construct and maintain.

 

[F1fan]

Because claims attributed to God were made, conditions for testing the claims were provided; I tested the claims using the conditions provided, the claims were verified, and man is incapable of fulfilling the claims. Based on my experience it would be illogical for me to conclude that the fulfillment of the claims didn't occur, or that they were fulfilled by someone other than the purported claimant.

This sounds objective and as if you followed facts, so why hasn't anyone been able to replicate this as a science experiment? Could it be you really are more biasd than you want to admit so you have the beliefs you want? Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

As I said in another recent post to a different poster, it is not as simple as you make it sound. If that means we have no discussion, then we have no discussion.

This is vague. You are making extraordinary claims and evidence has never been presented that suggests you are correct, so it must be you as a being with special powers that detects a God. Otherwise atheists would be able to detect God based on the evidence that's available to believers.

I appreciate the offer of that possibility. But I am incapable of fulfilling the claims that were made. I have no such power.

Yet you claim to interact with a God.

You did not address the other half of my statement: "The experiences I have had with God are my own."

Which suggests it is fabricated in your mind. I say that since you present these claims as if God is independent and available for anyone to detect and relate to, yet this doesn't happen. Is it possible your interaction with what you think is God is imagined?

Any response to my two statements that ignores or fails to account for both statements is an incomplete response.

This sounds like an excuse to evade the comment. Hindu children do adopt their parents religion, as do Christians and Muslims. This is observed. Yet we are supposed to accept your claims that you directly interact with a God? We can't ignore the way religion works socially and culturally in regards to extraordinary claims made by individuals.

We're going in circles because my response is as it was before: "Perhaps not to you, but you are not the only person."

You're the person claiming to interact with something not known to exist. If you won't or can't explain and demonstrate this is a true claim on your part why make it? What's your motive?

When one is ignorant of the reasons why the claim is made, or disagrees with them, I'm sure there are.

I've offered more plausible explanations why you think you interact with a God and you have no rebuttal. Calling others ignorant isn't convincing.

I am a critical thinker. While I'm not upset that I appear not be included in your group, I do resent not being included. Unless you can confirm that I am included.

Critical thinkers aren't a club where you pay a fee and get an official card. Critical thinkers are a category of people who demonstrate critical thinking skills. Your extraordinary claims do not reflect critical thought. You would understand to keep personal religious beliefs private in an open forum since you would understand you can't back up what you believe with evidence.

Now you're having a conversation with yourself, because you're drawing conclusions before my responses are exhausted.

What are you waiting for? As I noted you aren't the first believer claiming to interact with a God, and the pattern of belief and reasons are quite consistent. There's no objective argument ever presented.

I don't see how this has anything to do with what we've been talking about.

Because if a claimant in some extraordinary claim has a pattern of numerous irrational and false claims then that impeachesd their overall thinking.

I don't understand the question. But I would certainly condemn the action, and wouldn't hesitate to seek to hold the perpetrators accountable.

But how could you condemn Muslims who commit terrorist attacks when they claim God told them? What makes your claim any more credible? You're both interacting with God.

Convinced of what, exactly?

That a Muslim who dies for a cause is pretty good evidence that their God told them to act. Isn't death an exceptional commitment?

I wouldn't have any idea whether their beliefs were genuine or were, effectively, "programming."

You claimed to be a critical thinker. Can't you examine the evidence and come to a logical conclusion that those who claim to follow God in terrorist acts might be programmed to believe? And if these believers are programmed to such a degree perhaps more mundane believers are programmed as well?

0% suggests a communication problem. Have you ever looked closely at your methods? Have you asked persons to provide feedback? Do you impose your own views or bias onto the understanding of others when asking your questions? Do you preclude them from expressing themselves from within the framework of their understanding?

Like inquiry into any claim I have asked better question over the decades, but there still are no adequate answers by believers who think they interact with a God. It's on these claimants to convince me, and the harsh truth is they can't back up their claims. It's more likely they convinced themselves they interact wit a God.

I would expect that if ordinary mortals actually interacted with a real God that the experience would chance them remarkably, and they would exhibit a remarkable wisdom and knowledge. None have impressed me with any special manner or wisdom. They come across as any other believer. It comes down to: why are these people claiming to interact with a God in open forums at all? And then can't expalin that its true. I'm curious what the motive is. If folks really interacted with a God they would seek the affirmation, nor need to appease their egos.

What does that have to do with me? I have stated two or three times that my experiences are mine.

And your claims on an open forum are yours too. Why make the claims? What are you seeking by doing it?

 

[DNB]

I didn't say the world. I stated the natural forces out here in nature.

Same thing then - you reply had nothing to do with my initial response.

 

[DNB]

Just a shame that the religious have provided so many different answers then - many being contradictory - so why did you choose your particular delusion? Perhaps the truth doesn't include a God - which you have excluded by default it seems.

Oh so hurtful - not! We actually are the courageous ones - to dismiss the nonsense so often seen in religious texts, whilst so many of the religious are hobbling their own intelligence by believing that which no reasonable person would believe when presented with enough evidence that they could recognise and understand. YEC nonsense, for example.

Corrupt? What a laugh that is - given it is just based on living in an age when little was known rather than understanding that progress occurs and understanding too. But then perhaps you just want to stand still and let the world move on around you. No sympathy from me, chum, since this attitude will be as extinct as the dinosaurs eventually - if we actually survive the human condition.

Of course we don't want to be told what to do - when it might depend upon which country we might be in at any one time, and hence having to obey the religious laws of that country. We do tend to take our worked out morality around with us at all times on the other hand - being rather more consistent as to rationality. And if one does actually believe in one's moral values, such is generally a better option for not misbehaving than believing in rules that one might bend to suit oneself.

Rubbish! The morals you seem to think came from God were undoubtedly borrowed from prior times, and being as natural as much of physical existence being so too. Just as religions seem to have borrowed from each other.

You take way too much for granted - having any sense of morality is a spiritual derivation - no spirit came from stardust and protoplasm.
You atheists are blind as bats - staring right a creature fashioned in the image of God, and you detect no evidence for His existence, whatsoever???
Unbelievable.

 

[DNB]

You're going about it incorrectly. Knowledge only comes from experience (empiricism). Faith is not a path to truth. It is the quickest way to accumulate false and unfalsifiable beliefs.

That's a strange depiction of what atheists believe about themselves. Most of us are atheistic humanists, meaning we seek truth through the application of reason to evidence and moral excellence by applying reason to the dictates of the conscience, which for most is that which promotes the greatest well-being of the greatest number as they define it (utilitarianism, Golden Rule).

What an ugly form of your religion it is that teaches you to think that way. It's really disgusting that it would scapegoats the ones who reject it and can say why to promote itself on their backs. Where would Christianity be without its defamations, its lies to children and to as many of their parents that it can keep in that juvenile state (look at your words here), and the swords of the Roman Empire, the crusaders, and the conquistadores?

We reject your religion and its standards. Of course you frame it that way. That's what your Bible teaches in multiple defamatory statements about unbelievers. Look at how ugly this is:

[1] "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1

[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." - Revelation 21:8

[3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14

[4] Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22

[5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23

[6] "They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity." - Ephesians 4:18-24

Altogether, your book depicts unbelievers as corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of which does any good, all greedy to practice every kind of impurity, to be shunned, fit to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god, and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers.

And you call this a religion of love. No thanks. I can do better.

Your version of accountability and mine aren't alike, and you are correct that I will not be told what to do by an ancient book written by people who had no problem with slavery or autocracy and who didn't know where the rain came from or where the sun went at night. What do such people have to teach a self-actualized, autonomous humanist who is comfortable without gods and religions about anything?

The god you worship is a moral and intellectual failure as your book describes it. I have a better understanding of love, truth, and rectitude than that book offers or its rendition as the church in contemporary life. This religion has nothing to offer me. You have nothing to offer me.

I leave that gloomy worldview to people willing to believe it. How about you and they worry about sin and hell and the devil for me? How about you live in a world that you have been convinced is lost and getting worse while I live in a world free of all of that. My world is actually a very good one, but maybe that's because I've avoided the extremely negative indoctrination of your religion.

Recently, I was visited by the Jehovah's Witnesses. The visit began by assuming as you do that the world was a terrible place, getting worse. They seemed to assume that I agreed with that. I did not.

I explained that although many live difficult lives, the world is also a wonderful place for many, and that I was happy being in it. That was literally the end of the discussion. They said thank you and moved along, which surprised me. Why did they give up so quickly and easily? Were they unprepared for and stymied by my answer? That didn't seem possible, but what else could it be? My point is that if I didn't see the world as going to hell in a bucket, it seems that they thought they had nothing to say to me. And they were correct.

How gloomy is their world and yours? How many believers have stated that their beliefs are what gives their life meaning. They see the atheist's life as hopeless and empty, because that's what they think their lives would be if they lost their faith. What kind of existence is that? Who did that to them?

Here's a verse from Dylan's Desolation Row which I believe captures that emptiness and poverty of spirit:

Ophelia, she's 'neath the window; for her I feel so afraid
On her twenty-second birthday she already is an old maid
To her, death is quite romantic; she wears an iron vest
Her profession's her religion, her sin is her lifelessness
And though her eyes are fixed upon Noah's great rainbow
She spends her time peeking into Desolation Row

That's right on the money. Poor Ophelia, already a shell of a person at 22, a professional, lifeless religious zealot, whose gaze is fixed on Noah's great rainbow (the hope for salvation) and experiencing her world around her as desolation.

One can tell the extent of one's intellect and depth of perception, based on how they feel about the world and mankind - maybe that's why the JW's split so abruptly ...that's why I would.
Mankind is wicked, and always has been. And as much as it is only a fool who would say in his heart that God does not exist, equally, only a fool would regard the world as anything less than corrupt and subversive.

BTW, I prefer the Rolling Stones to Dylan

 

[F1fan]

You take way too much for granted - having any sense of morality is a spiritual derivation - no spirit came from stardust and protoplasm.

Describe how spirits exist in realty the way you understand it. And if they are not natural, how did they come into existence? Use facts so we all can check your answer.

You atheists are blind as bats - staring right a creature fashioned in the image of God, and you detect no evidence for His existence, whatsoever???
Unbelievable.

Then explain it to us, and use facts, not religious assumptions and dogma.

If what you claim is true, why doesn't science recognize it?

 

[DNB]

Being held accountable means accepting our mistakes and making things right - making the victim whole
If I drove drunk one night and caused some material damage, sure in the light of the day, I am repentant
But if I start crying and beg for forgiveness from the Judge, he actually, will get angry
1 - Tell me that I need to stop crying, stop feeling sorry for myself, take responsibility for my actions
2 - As a Judge he does not have the right to forgive, only the victim has that right
3 - And most important, I need to set things right, pay for the damages that I caused, make the victim whole
In fact, it is YOU theists who are corrupt and sick
You think you can just beg and cry your way out
All this talk of repentance and the religion assures you that nice God will forgive you and that is what you are really after
Not one word about the victim, not one mention of the pain that you caused
Not even once do you ask for a 2nd chance to set things right, because you know what, to set things right, you
have to come back - Reincarnation!
But you want nothing to do with doing the right thing, all you want to do is cry and sneak away to Heaven
And religion assures you that nice God will let you do that - help you cheat your victims!
Well Sir, the real God is not going to help you cheat your victims
He is not going to let you cry your way out
Amazing that you talk morals, values! Just wow!

You sound simple.
No other creature on earth concerns themselves with the victim's plight, because no one of the animal kingdom has enacted a law that prohibits killing, abuse, anger, fighting and so on. No monkey protests the fact that a lion just came and ate its baby alive. When an antelope losses it offspring, they do not hold funerals or give eulogies.

Only man has a spiritual dimension in order to recognize right from wrong.
When one transgresses a law, it is the legislator that has been defied.
Compensatory measures are put in place to protect the victims.
But, ultimately, where there is no law, there is no sin. If you don't believe me, go ask a lion that just killed a cheetah for straying into its territory.

 

[DNB]

You are actually mocking God and his work? Not up to your standard?
God made this world, this earth - our home - gave us this life
Life is a Gift from God
But life is also harsh, not easy and so religions have created Heavens - perfect worlds - to run away to and hide
These are fantasies - they are not real
Only this world is Real
One cannot live in a fantasy - one can live only in the real world

You're living in a fantasy according to your own sentiments. If you have any sense of right and wrong it could only come from a moral entity. Otherwise, anything goes - that's life and deal with it. But, clearly, there's not a human worth mentioning that will agree with that - we are all spiritual creatures, created in God's image.
But you seem to be too flippin' blind to see that???

 

[DNB]

Describe how spirits exist in realty the way you understand it. And if they are not natural, how did they come into existence? Use facts so we all can check your answer.

Then explain it to us, and use facts, not religious assumptions and dogma.

If what you claim is true, why doesn't science recognize it?

You're worldview is deficient - there exists another dimension outside of science and the material realm.
If I have to flippin' explain it to you i.e. you don't see the devil, then what's the point. The evidence is axiomatic.

 

[EconGuy]

Let me first admit that I was somewhat dismissive when I first noticed the thread. I was wrong. I just wish that thread included a

• yes
• no
• don't know

poll. I vote "don't know."

Someone may have picked up on this and I missed it, but just a word of advice, to claim to know or to admit you don't know relates to knowledge, so when choosing your poll question you're saying you have no knowledge, but the question asked what you believe as belief and knowledge aren't the same. For example, I don't know if intelligent life exists on other planets, but based on what I know about the universe, I believe it is more likely than not that it does. I claim no knowledge, but share what I believe.

Now, if you aren't sure, and you don't want to get schooled by some nerd like me, then a better poll question should be something like, I'm not sure what to believe, or perhaps, I'm still trying to figure out what I believe.

-Cheers

 

[F1fan]

You're worldview is deficient -

I didn't mention any worldview. I did notice you couldn't answer my questions, which suggests you haven't thought through what you believe.

there exists another dimension outside of science and the material realm.

Where are the facts?

If I have to flippin' explain it to you i.e. you don't see the devil, then what's the point. The evidence is axiomatic.

So you lack answers to easy questions. Then I reject your claims.

 

[EconGuy]

If you have any sense of right and wrong it could only come from a moral entity.

I'm curious, and please, understand, I'm genuine when I ask this question as I'm very interested in the concept of subjective vs objective morality.

Assuming that something like rape, forcing another person to engage in sex without their implicit or explicit permission, is wrong. Why is it wrong? Please explain based on your belief that right and wrong can only come from a moral entity.

And understand I think it's wrong, but I don't think it requires a moral entity for me to say it and provide a logical and reasonable basis for my belief.

Respectfully,

EG